POLB81 Week 11 Lecture.docx

6 Pages
78 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POLB81H3
Professor
M.Hoffmann- Universityof Toronto
Semester
Winter

Description
Accumulative exam Multiple problems of environment \-> causes, impacts, perspectives that different groups have on causes and impacts  mitigation  diferent kinds of greenhouse emissions (future, past that matters)  per capita or absolute that counts?  Procuding goods that matter?  Climate change probably one of most complex issues because greenhouse gases linked to so many aspects of our lives, different ways of conceiving the product, series of rules to solve the problem Two main governance approaches Institutionalism -> All of global issues we looked at, intl community and organizations set up multilateral solutions for climate change Issue of global independence that states feel What does climate change look like if we make a treaty? What kind of problem is climate change from an institutional perspective?  Problem of multilateral cooperation because causes and effects are distributed globally  An issue no govt can handle by itself, causes and effects found differently everywhere. Insitutonalism perspective says you need to use tools of multilateral cooperation to find solution Climate change = emissions reductions Governance  How much to cut?  Who will cut?  How will it be paid for?  Key definition of problem of climate change  Cut globally..problem is deciding on global target, how much globe should cut, how to distribute those cuts, how will it be paid for. Key subject since 1990. Mitigation  What kind of a problem is climate change is  Problem with adaptation as well since we are seeing effects of climate change  Who’s affected and responsiblility? (adaptation) The History of Climate Change Negotiation (video. Youtube) 2 slide Building the Climate Change Regime  late 1980s early 1990s, climae change got on intenational agenda (potential problem). Knew about greenhouse effects before, physics of notion that increasing carbon dioxide leads to warming up Earth.  To get on international agenda, UN in 1989 set up IPCC (body intended to do and has done in 20 plus years is aggregate, put together the best and most cutting edge science. Gather up all studies of climate change, causes effects anad policies/solutions and summarize for policymakers. Summarize it for negotiating, understand scientific base of it.  First report came out in 1990, IPCC  Tells us what we know about climate change  Negotiation stages got to think about in three ways Structure: universal negotiations  From very beginning, entire UN membership participates  Consensus rules are in place (doesn’t mean that only one country can stop everything, but means that goal of all of this is to seek consensus. Not something that just China and US can agree on). Interests  Start of negotiations of UNFCCC  North-North debates (Europe and US)  EU wanted first agreement to have binding reductions agreement (cut by x percent greenhouse gas emissions). US didn’t want binding reductions agreement. Differing understanding of what should be in the treaty  Differing views because of domestic politics, governmental institutions, green parties more represented in governments in EU than US.  Different levels of fossil fuels usage, US more dependent on fossil fuels than EU because of transportation system, energy systems (coal dependent), EU varies and diverse  North-South debate (historical responsibility, concerned about development. Burning fossil fuels is only way to develop. You all caused this problem).  Same arguments, North trying to get South to cut down  South-South debates (large developing countries, OPEC, small island nations/LDC)  Large development countries focused on their development, didn’t want to take any restrictions that would slow down their economic growth. Prioritize development.  OPEC - if we do climate governance, or treaty in a way that really reduces greenhouse, their entire economic model is down (ultimate goal is decarbonate them)  Small island states/LDCs – more than any other, see it as an existential threat, wiping them off the map (physically). Pushing for climate change Non-binding  US agreed to non-binding target of stabilizing climate and greenhouse  Not a legally binding  Did however say that each state has to report their emissions CBDR – compromise that says it’s a common problem that affects everyone, but differentiated responsibilities based on development levels  North South side  All don’t act in the same way South-South debate  US won North-North debate (OPEC happy)  Small islands ignored  North-First that they would take action Kyoto Protocol  International community begins to make a protocol, lay out specifics on how to reach these goals Structure of negotiations: Same Interests: Same Small, slight change 1992 -> US Clinton elected  Slight shift in position of climate change  US signals will to discuss and take on binding emissions reductions  Alters North-North debate in many ways  North-North debate not so much about whether to cut (binding emission
More Less

Related notes for POLB81H3

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit